Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #433880 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-04 13:04 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-11-05 11:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-04 13:04 -0500
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-04 20:23 +0000
Re: NASAs most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-11-04 18:24 -0400
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-05 11:34 -0400
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 09:51 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-08 14:59 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-09 02:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-09 18:03 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 08:08 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 10:03 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 10:27 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-10 03:54 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 14:23 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 14:41 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 16:06 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:53 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:40 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 19:24 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 19:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2016-11-11 13:23 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 17:12 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 12:48 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-11 18:17 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 13:20 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-11 13:29 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 01:57 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:26 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-11 18:41 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-11 13:42 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2016-11-12 14:21 -0600
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:38 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:52 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:49 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 17:59 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 09:05 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 09:41 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 14:57 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 10:03 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-12 18:46 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 13:46 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 19:30 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-13 00:56 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:19 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:44 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:47 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-13 12:00 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 18:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-13 13:52 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 19:22 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:47 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-15 04:47 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:06 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 23:53 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 19:59 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:53 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:31 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-13 09:25 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 17:29 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 17:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:08 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:49 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-13 01:10 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 19:47 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 17:56 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-13 00:50 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 20:06 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-13 01:50 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:08 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 17:34 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 18:44 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-13 09:20 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:09 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-14 08:44 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 09:36 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-14 12:21 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 16:55 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 13:44 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-13 09:00 +1100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:21 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 10:46 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:10 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:55 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:29 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 20:15 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:26 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-10 13:02 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 17:49 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 13:00 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 19:34 +0000
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 09:16 +0000
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-05 11:07 -0500
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 09:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2gcbd.lns.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #435303 |
Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On 13/11/16 03:53, rickman wrote: >> On 11/12/2016 5:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 12/11/16 22:19, krw wrote: >>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:46:46 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann >>>> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 12.11.2016 um 16:03 schrieb krw: >>>>> >>>>>> Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. >>>>>> Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. >>>>> >>>>> When I open my eyes and look at the world, by far >>>>> the biggest group of haters are the religious. >>>> >>>> No, you're just projecting your hate on them. >>> >>> What do you think Christ meant in Luke 14:26? >>> >>> Seems explicit and unambiguous to me. >> >> The English Bible is a translation and often has different meanings than the >> original Bible could have been interpreted to have. I seem to recall reading >> this passage is one of those where it can have a rather different interpretation. > > In which case the bible cannot be *the* word of God! > > It might be what somebody (mis)heard while God was > mumbling, but not much more :) The common problem again... the people that wrote down their myths and those that called it "the Bible" lived in a culture so different from ours, with a language so different, that it cannot be used today without ending up in a fight about "interpretation".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 17:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <6929a860-1e0e-4bcd-96d2-a9260f9d83e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435303 |
On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 7:31:17 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 13/11/16 03:53, rickman wrote: > > On 11/12/2016 5:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: > >> On 12/11/16 22:19, krw wrote: > >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:46:46 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann > >>> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Am 12.11.2016 um 16:03 schrieb krw: > >>>> > >>>>> Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. > >>>>> Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. > >>>> > >>>> When I open my eyes and look at the world, by far > >>>> the biggest group of haters are the religious. > >>> > >>> No, you're just projecting your hate on them. > >> > >> What do you think Christ meant in Luke 14:26? > >> > >> Seems explicit and unambiguous to me. > > > > The English Bible is a translation and often has different meanings than the > > original Bible could have been interpreted to have. I seem to recall reading > > this passage is one of those where it can have a rather different interpretation. > > In which case the bible cannot be *the* word of God! > > It might be what somebody (mis)heard while God was > mumbling, but not much more :) Spinoza said it first. It upset quite a few people at the time. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/radical-enlightenment-9780199254569?cc=au&lang=en&# The message hasn't yet got through to everybody, and you still hear pious fables about parallel bible translations coming out identical (even when they must have come out identically wrong). -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 17:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o0de94$a7k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #435303 |
On 11/13/2016 3:31 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 13/11/16 03:53, rickman wrote: >> On 11/12/2016 5:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 12/11/16 22:19, krw wrote: >>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:46:46 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann >>>> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 12.11.2016 um 16:03 schrieb krw: >>>>> >>>>>> Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. >>>>>> Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. >>>>> >>>>> When I open my eyes and look at the world, by far >>>>> the biggest group of haters are the religious. >>>> >>>> No, you're just projecting your hate on them. >>> >>> What do you think Christ meant in Luke 14:26? >>> >>> Seems explicit and unambiguous to me. >> >> The English Bible is a translation and often has different meanings >> than the >> original Bible could have been interpreted to have. I seem to recall >> reading >> this passage is one of those where it can have a rather different >> interpretation. > > In which case the bible cannot be *the* word of God! Actually, I don't think that follows. The fact that the translations are not perfectly accurate does not prove God did not dictate the Bible. It just means the translations are no more the word of God than the original is. In fact, using language is not a good way to communicate something as important as the "word of God". It is too easy to misinterpret a language even in which you are a native speaker. > It might be what somebody (mis)heard while God was > mumbling, but not much more :) Yes, you won't get disagreement from me on that issue. I think when people think they hear God talking, it is mostly that noise that your brain generates when it is absolutely quiet. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 00:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <ClsWz.197625$2P.133578@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #435607 |
On 14/11/16 22:36, rickman wrote: > On 11/13/2016 3:31 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 13/11/16 03:53, rickman wrote: >>> On 11/12/2016 5:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> On 12/11/16 22:19, krw wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:46:46 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann >>>>> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Am 12.11.2016 um 16:03 schrieb krw: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. >>>>>>> Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. >>>>>> >>>>>> When I open my eyes and look at the world, by far >>>>>> the biggest group of haters are the religious. >>>>> >>>>> No, you're just projecting your hate on them. >>>> >>>> What do you think Christ meant in Luke 14:26? >>>> >>>> Seems explicit and unambiguous to me. >>> >>> The English Bible is a translation and often has different meanings >>> than the >>> original Bible could have been interpreted to have. I seem to recall >>> reading >>> this passage is one of those where it can have a rather different >>> interpretation. >> >> In which case the bible cannot be *the* word of God! > > Actually, I don't think that follows. The fact that the translations are not > perfectly accurate does not prove God did not dictate the Bible. It just means > the translations are no more the word of God than the original is. In fact, > using language is not a good way to communicate something as important as the > "word of God". It is too easy to misinterpret a language even in which you are > a native speaker. The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. >> It might be what somebody (mis)heard while God was >> mumbling, but not much more :) > > Yes, you won't get disagreement from me on that issue. I think when people > think they hear God talking, it is mostly that noise that your brain generates > when it is absolutely quiet. :) Of course too long in such a situation makes you lose your mind. Hence it is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, and is only used in third world dictatorships. (Isn't it?) ;}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 08:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <xOVVz.119140$QT.16827@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #435278 |
On 13/11/16 03:53, rickman wrote: > On 11/12/2016 5:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 12/11/16 22:19, krw wrote: >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:46:46 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann >>> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 12.11.2016 um 16:03 schrieb krw: >>>> >>>>> Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. >>>>> Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. >>>> >>>> When I open my eyes and look at the world, by far >>>> the biggest group of haters are the religious. >>> >>> No, you're just projecting your hate on them. >> >> What do you think Christ meant in Luke 14:26? >> >> Seems explicit and unambiguous to me. > > The English Bible is a translation and often has different meanings than the > original Bible could have been interpreted to have. I seem to recall reading > this passage is one of those where it can have a rather different interpretation. I've just spent a couple of minutes amusing myself by having a look at many versions of that verse. www.biblegateway.com The vast majority use the word "hate". Some, e.g. the "Easy-to-Read Version Copyright © 2006 by Bible League International" (no, really, don't laugh!) simply Bowdlerise it. Others try to weasel out of it by stating that "hate" doesn't mean hate. One, the "Amplified Bible Copyright © 2015 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA 90631" goes so far as to state that "hate" means love! In that case they might as well state that Jesus means Allah or Ahura Mazda, or...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 01:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <e8ppciFdstdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #435211 |
Am 12.11.2016 um 23:19 schrieb krw: > On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:46:46 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann > <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >> When I open my eyes and look at the world, by far >> the biggest group of haters are the religious. > > No, you're just projecting your hate on them. You mean, their daily bombs are my projections? They don't need me for bombing, mostly they have enough to do with people of the other flavours of their own religion. >> >> And are they proud that their $GOD can safely hide >> behind their broad back! >> Works best for those who have nothing else to be proud on. > > No need to say more. Your hatred is dripping already. Are you sure you get the vitamins you need, maybe medical help?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 19:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <ctdf2c5m0glp0arc3lpi5c0209qs9sbn8i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435243 |
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:10:52 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >Am 12.11.2016 um 23:19 schrieb krw: >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:46:46 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann >> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: > >>> When I open my eyes and look at the world, by far >>> the biggest group of haters are the religious. >> >> No, you're just projecting your hate on them. > >You mean, their daily bombs are my projections? >They don't need me for bombing, mostly they have >enough to do with people of the other flavours of >their own religion. You don't choose to use bombs (though it's not certain for how long) but your hate is real. > > >>> >>> And are they proud that their $GOD can safely hide >>> behind their broad back! >>> Works best for those who have nothing else to be proud on. >> >> No need to say more. Your hatred is dripping already. > > >Are you sure you get the vitamins you need, maybe >medical help? More evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 17:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2elu7.47u.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #435090 |
krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On 12 Nov 2016 14:57:55 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>> On 12 Nov 2016 09:05:57 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>> >>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>>>>>> it "bizarre". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>>>>>>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>>>>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>>>>>>what a good scientist should strive for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>>>>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>>But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >>>>>>of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >>>>>>that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>>>>>enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>>>>>previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >>>>> >>>>> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? >>>> >>>>There is not necessarily an answer to that question. >>> >>> Bingo! That is the big question that religion tries to answer. >> >>Sure, but there is also the question "where do all those presents >>at christmas come from" that parents answer because their kids want >>to hear it. That does not make the answer true. > > Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. > Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 17:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <0c5f2cddegrv016i9eip0h72ttdjqmhu9o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435135 |
On 12 Nov 2016 17:56:23 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 12 Nov 2016 14:57:55 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 12 Nov 2016 09:05:57 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>>>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>>>>>>> it "bizarre". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>>>>>>>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>>>>>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>>>>>>>what a good scientist should strive for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>>>>>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >>>>>>>of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >>>>>>>that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>>>>>>enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>>>>>>previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? >>>>> >>>>>There is not necessarily an answer to that question. >>>> >>>> Bingo! That is the big question that religion tries to answer. >>> >>>Sure, but there is also the question "where do all those presents >>>at christmas come from" that parents answer because their kids want >>>to hear it. That does not make the answer true. >> >> Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. >> Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. > >I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are really a sad bunch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 00:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o08dce$g7a$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #435212 |
On 2016-11-12, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On 12 Nov 2016 17:56:23 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. > > No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are > really a sad bunch. No, it's just that you consider them to be sub-human. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 20:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <f3ff2c9a86l4a548nfnpgsbasfld44q7n1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435251 |
On 13 Nov 2016 00:50:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >On 2016-11-12, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 12 Nov 2016 17:56:23 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>> >>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. >> >> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are >> really a sad bunch. > >No, it's just that you consider them to be sub-human. You're cracked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 01:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o08gti$gt2$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #435252 |
On 2016-11-13, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On 13 Nov 2016 00:50:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > >>On 2016-11-12, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>> On 12 Nov 2016 17:56:23 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. >>> >>> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are >>> really a sad bunch. >> >>No, it's just that you consider them to be sub-human. > > You're cracked. Typical right-whinger projecting again. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 18:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <dish2cpat99fe5v7ahp9jc3c0l3hf1637p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435263 |
On 13 Nov 2016 01:50:42 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >On 2016-11-13, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 13 Nov 2016 00:50:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>>On 2016-11-12, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 12 Nov 2016 17:56:23 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. >>>> >>>> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are >>>> really a sad bunch. >>> >>>No, it's just that you consider them to be sub-human. >> >> You're cracked. > >Typical right-whinger projecting again. Nope. Just a statement of fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 17:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <7738e1fb-be05-4425-a2a8-773789d710fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435432 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:08:17 AM UTC+11, krw wrote: > On 13 Nov 2016 01:50:42 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > > >On 2016-11-13, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> On 13 Nov 2016 00:50:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > >> > >>>On 2016-11-12, krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >>>> On 12 Nov 2016 17:56:23 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. > >>>> > >>>> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are > >>>> really a sad bunch. > >>> > >>>No, it's just that you consider them to be sub-human. > >> > >> You're cracked. > > > >Typical right-whinger projecting again. > > Nope. Just a statement of fact. Krw hasn't really mastered the distinction between something he believes and a demonstrable fact. Evidence-based argument is quite beyond him, because he can't see the difference between something he believes and something he can demonstrate to be true. It's an interesting failure of cognition. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 18:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <427825b4-efbb-48d3-a992-c8cfeacebdf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435212 |
On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:20:38 AM UTC+11, krw wrote: > On 12 Nov 2016 17:56:23 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > > >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> On 12 Nov 2016 14:57:55 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >> > >>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >>>> On 12 Nov 2016 09:05:57 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be > >>>>>>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make > >>>>>>>>>> it "bizarre". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic > >>>>>>>>>as possible to explain the observed facts. > >>>>>>>>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not > >>>>>>>>>what a good scientist should strive for. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, > >>>>>>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a > >>>>>>>> time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation > >>>>>>>of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that > >>>>>>>that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given > >>>>>>>enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the > >>>>>>>previously written religious explanations will be disproven. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? > >>>>> > >>>>>There is not necessarily an answer to that question. > >>>> > >>>> Bingo! That is the big question that religion tries to answer. > >>> > >>>Sure, but there is also the question "where do all those presents > >>>at christmas come from" that parents answer because their kids want > >>>to hear it. That does not make the answer true. > >> > >> Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. > >> Rather, you're interested in hating the religious. > > > >I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. > > No, you hate. Krw knows this in the same way that krw knows most things. Evidence doesn't come into it. > You think them to be sub-human. Doesn't follow. Having silly ideas is perfectly human. Trying to get rid of most them is a popular human past-time, but not universal, as krw exemplifies. > Militant atheists are really a sad bunch. Exactly as sad as militant theists. One bunch insists that God exists, the other than he doesn't. Agnostics jeer at both on the basis that the question isn't worth worrying about. If God wanted us to know that he existed, he'd have given us unambiguous proof. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 09:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2gc3a.lns.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #435212 |
krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. > > No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are I know that religious people can only hate other people that think differently, but that does not mean those other people do that too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 18:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <jjsh2c98d4ra7990255uavl5b09ii843f2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435308 |
On 13 Nov 2016 09:20:42 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. >> >> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are > >I know that religious people can only hate other people that think >differently, but that does not mean those other people do that too. You're cracked, too. You don't even make any sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 08:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2iubf.55r.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #435433 |
krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On 13 Nov 2016 09:20:42 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. >>> >>> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are >> >>I know that religious people can only hate other people that think >>differently, but that does not mean those other people do that too. > > You're cracked, too. You don't even make any sense. You are so locked into your religious bullshit that you cannot even understand how other people think about it. But that does not mean that other people hate you. Hate is what is in the religious books.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 09:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <MAfWz.187578$ha2.62530@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #435520 |
On 14/11/16 08:44, Rob wrote: > krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 13 Nov 2016 09:20:42 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>> krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>> I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. >>>> >>>> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are >>> >>> I know that religious people can only hate other people that think >>> differently, but that does not mean those other people do that too. >> >> You're cracked, too. You don't even make any sense. > > You are so locked into your religious bullshit that you cannot even > understand how other people think about it. But that does not mean > that other people hate you. Hate is what is in the religious books. Remarkably they continue in that vein even when shown direct uncontestable statements to the effect. (Luke 14:16, q.v.) (That raises the question of how they react w.r.t. what they see/read on instruments and in databooks, and similar.) Their reaction is typically like a politician trying to deny what they said, frequently even including "it doesn't mean that"! Lewis Carrol summed it up in "Through the Looking Glass"... Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 12:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <uisj2c9oqcae6qfpv002o8a7g6nmlm0u2c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435520 |
On 14 Nov 2016 08:44:31 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 13 Nov 2016 09:20:42 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. >>>> >>>> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are >>> >>>I know that religious people can only hate other people that think >>>differently, but that does not mean those other people do that too. >> >> You're cracked, too. You don't even make any sense. > >You are so locked into your religious bullshit that you cannot even >understand how other people think about it. But that does not mean >that other people hate you. Hate is what is in the religious books. You haven't been right yet. There's no reason anyone should believe you're going to start anytime soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web